Transit app developers see iOS 6 Maps as a chance to shine

As iOS 6 users, developers are frustrated. But as app makers, they're excited.

Buster 3 on the left, Embark NYC on the right. Both plug into iOS 6's new Maps app to offer transit directions.

The public reaction to Apple's new iOS 6 Maps application has been visceral thus far. There have been numerous complaints about Maps taking people to the wrong locations, directing them to businesses that have long been closed, and visually displaying less local and contextual data than Google Maps. Indeed, these are all turning out to be common frustrations among iOS 6 upgraders—I mentioned many of them in our review of iOS 6—prompting Apple to swear the app will be improved over time.

But one major omission from the Maps app that isn't likely to make a reappearance (at least from Apple) is transit directions. Apple stated that it ignored this feature in Maps in an attempt to open things up for third-party developers. The company line is that the best transit apps are ones that are tailored to each city. This may be true to some degree, but as I wrote in my iOS 6 review, I think this is a wildly user unfriendly move regardless of the motivation.

Apple appears to be sticking to its guns and is unlikely to reverse course anytime soon on the decision to put the transit responsibility on developers. Developers, on the other hand, appear to be cautiously optimistic about the move. Indeed, they appear excited about the possibilities, with many asserting a belief that the user experience will end up being better overall—once the early kinks are worked out.

How do transit apps plug into Maps anyway?

When a user enters a start and end point into the default Maps app and selects the transit button (instead of say, driving or walking), Maps automatically searches for any transit apps that might already be installed on the device. If there aren't any, it searches the App Store for apps based on geolocation—if you're in Chicago, it will bring up transit apps that are made for Chicago. If you're in London, it'll bring up ones for London, and so on. Users can still search for transit apps for all cities manually, but Maps aims to bring up only results for the city you're in—presumably to help weed out the cruft when all you want to do is get to your hotel.

Existing transit apps can't automatically plug into Maps, though. Developers have to tell Apple that they're making a transit app and provide a boundary for the area they're serving in order for it to function with Maps. When they do this, it allows their apps to function both as a standalone app and as a plugin to Maps.

Developers appear excited about this even if it involves significantly more work. Cieslak and his partner Jacob Van Order (who has his own app called QuickTrain) told me they teamed up in part because they needed to come up with their own way to actually route the user between point A and point B. When Maps calls their new app (Buster 3, to be released next week) with a beginning and end point, Buster will hand the data to a server using Open Trip Planner. OTP returns a "huge JSON file," which Buster 3 then uses in combination with Apple's MapKit to plot out the lines and provide an itinerary.

All this allows developers to offer a wider variety of transit options than what was available previously under Google's Maps app (which was largely limited to trains and busses in most cities). And because of the added transportation options, developers have the ability to provide users with even more customized routing options. TripGo developer Adrian Schoenig told Ars that his company's app can offer combinations of options—such as taking your car to the train station, taking the train into the city, and taking a cab to your final destination.

Such flexibility does sound appealing from a user's point of view. Cieslak and his partner Van Order added that Buster 3 will be able to "favorite" entire routes instead of individual stops thanks to the changes they're making. So if you're always taking a series of trains and buses to get to work, you can keep that route bookmarked for future use. And their app will also send push notifications to get off or transfer at certain locations, too, so you don't forget in case you're reading a book or engaging in a heated Twitter argument.

Opportunity is knocking

Indeed, the most common message I received from developers about this change was that they were hesitant to add significant new features before due to the limited audience. But now that Apple has unceremoniously shoved responsibility for transit into their hands, they've been motivated to step up and create some truly useful apps that they might not have done before.

"Developers have a lot of new opportunities because now transit apps are in high demand," developer Tim Desir told Ars. "Also, Apple is giving out free advertisement by including developers apps in a system app that everyone will see."

Schoenig agreed. "It's better for us developers and better for Apple. Users will feel short-term pain due to the lacking quality of Apple's maps and possibly lack of high-quality transit apps for where they are. In the medium- and long-term it will be an overall gain. It's better for innovation," Schoenig said.

"Now we have a chance to do something better than the Maps in iOS 5 and actually have an audience for it," Van Order said.

And it's important to remember that while Google's version of Maps worked reasonably well when it came to transit, it was still limited in many ways. Arrival and departure times were often wildly inaccurate. And Google was unable to take into account service changes, train or bus line shutdowns, and other details that would affect a user's route. To be sure, any regular transit user had their frustrations with the iOS 5 version of Maps as well, which is why some developers believe this change has the potential for good.

Embark developer David Hodge was quick to point this out. "Google, in its efforts to cover every single city, provides mediocre results in key big cities like NYC and SF. These big cities require a level of attention to detail that is difficult to achieve at scale. Apple instead chose to empower its app developers to make public transit apps," Hodge told Ars. "This is why we go in to cities like New York and figure out details like walking speeds and transfer times because that makes all the difference in providing accurate transit results.

"We think this is a great move for the space. Just like the early days of the App Store, Apple has opened up a large opportunity for developers to further innovate and improve public transit apps. Going into the iOS 6 launch, we were planning about 4 million mass transit trips per month for our users. Based on what we've seen with iOS 6 in the last 24 hours, that rate should be increasing by an order of magnitude shortly. So we've benefited thus far."

Still a user-unfriendly move

The developers are generally optimistic about their prospects, but they're still just "regular" users in their everyday lives. And from that perspective, they're more than willing to acknowledge that the situation is less-than-ideal—at least for now.

"I was really disappointed that transit was removed at first. I wasn't buying the 'developers make the best transit apps,'" Desir told Ars. "I really think that it's good for developers who want to make something better, but bad for the 'average user' and people who heavily rely on public transportation and don't know much about other apps on the App Store. It was a risky decision to do this."

Indeed, despite their optimism, almost all the developers I spoke to acknowledged that things won't be easy for users. "I personally used the transit directions in the Maps app almost every day, and haven't found a full-featured replacement that I like yet, so I find it pretty frustrating," developer Peter Stuart told Ars. "Right now things are definitely worse, but I think that eventually third-party apps will offer the same features and potentially be even better."

Some echoed my comments from the iOS 6 review, pointing out that users will have to learn something new in order to achieve the same level of functionality. That, combined with the inconsistent transit experience between cities, will undoubtedly provide challenges to the iOS 6 userbase.

"The only difficult part is the learning curve users will have to go through," Desir added. "All the transit apps will do the same thing, but will present it differently. It just sucks that some people will have to re-learn how to do what they've been doing for the past couple years."

Not all developers were as optimistic about the long-term possibilities for their apps, though. "The 3D maps are amazing, but they are meaningless if the core features of getting you from point A to point B aren't working," developer Greg Raiz told Ars. "I believe there may be a short-term opportunity for regional app developers, but long-term I see this being an area that's incorporated into the OS. I suspect the sheer number of issues prevented Apple from tackling transit directions; I expect this will be back. "

Promoted Comments

I think an article on how you can take map data from various sources (Tom Tom and others) and end up with this level of problems would be good. I admit that I don't have a good idea of how all that backend programming works, so I would be interested to learn more.

I can explain a little bit, I hope. I have done some navigation and GIS related programming before, although I think the problem is more to do with geodetics and conflicting data than any programming issue.

There are a number of potential sources of error, especially when you start involving multiple data sets. The first issue is presentation: The Earth is 3D, and we need to represent it in 2D. Worse, the Earth is a sphere. Imagine if you will trying to get a piece of paper wrapped smoothly around a ball, perfectly adhering to the surface of the ball. The paper always has gaps and bits of it don't quite touch the ball. If you imagine the paper to be film, and shine a light from the inside of the ball, it will project an image of the surface onto the paper. If the paper was perfect, it'd be a perfect representation, but it's not because we can't wrap it so it touches the surface in all places equally. This means the resultant image has some distortions, and it's not a 100% accurate representation. The process of taking a curved surface and making it flat will introduce distortions. In this case, the paper is your map and the ball is the Earth. These are called projections. Distortions can be one source of error.

But there's another problem. When we refer to points on the surface of the Earth, we use latitude and longitude. Latitude is nice; One degree of latitude is always the same distance. With longitude, it gets sticky. The distance between a degree of longitude at the equator isn't the same as the distance between a degree of longitude at the arctic circle. As we go towards the poles the lines of longitude converge, changing the distance on a scale depending on how far north/south you are. This isn't very desirable, because it makes measuring distances a real pain. We'd like to define a neat 2D grid in feet/meters, so we can figure out distances with simple subtraction and some Pythagoras rather than a mess of trig and calculus.

Before we can get down to a nice neat 2D Cartesian grid, we have an intermediate step. We want to get away from lat/long, because x/y is much easier to work with. So we go down to what's called a datum. Globally we use one called WGS84, but before the advent of satellites, everyone used their own regional datum. In the US this was called NAD27 (for 1927, when it was made), Europe had ED50, I believe Britain had their own, etc. In addition, each one used a certain reference ellipsoid, a mathematical modeling approximating the shape of the Earth (WGS84 refers to both the ellipsoid and datum). I'm sure you can already see this becoming a whole can of worms. What these served to do was specify a horizontal grid for a certain region, with the origin at a fixed point. NAD27 used Meades Ranch, WGS84 uses the center of the Earth. The problem with this is, counties in, say, California don't really want to map everything in their state in relation to some guys ranch in Kansas. Enter the State Planes system.

In the United States we use what's called the State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS). It's a set of small projections for every state broken up into zones. It's highly accurate within the zone, but the accuracy degrades rapidly outside of it. It's used extensively, and many states have scads of maps in their state plane coordinate system. They use it for road maps and other surveys. The problem with this is that when you cross the boundary between two planes, the coordinates all change to something completely different. A road located at x=1000 on one system may be x=1000000 when it travels to another zone.

You can see when mapping off of data provided by this, you need to accomodate for these shifts, by translating to the datum and then translating back to the new one. To make matters worse, some maps may be old or not using the standard WGS84 datum, so you then have to convert to the older datum, which doesn't line up correctly in the first place, and then convert back to the SPCS. There are even different formulas used to convert between datums, which can produce different results! Usually if there's an error, it's not a big one. Anecdotally, when offshore we used a different formula to position a boat precisely than the one the surveyors had used in planning our position. We were off by about 18 feet, not big, but maybe enough to put you next door.

Back to projections, the problem is your coordinates are a nice square grid, but your flat pictures grid is actually skewed, because it's a projection off a sphere. We need to distort the picture so that the pictures grid matches the nice square coordinates we have. When you're trying to align a picture of the earth's surface to a map of the earth's surface, you have to pin various known points of that picture to the positions on the map. eg If you know on the picture that this is the junction between I-10 and I-610, you say "Ok map, give me your coordinates for this junction, and this particular pixel of the image is anchored here." You go around and do that a few dozen/hundred times, and then the computer works out the rest. The problem is, you can't go around and pin down each and every single point to it's exact coordinate, because that's way too labor intensive. It would take years, and by the time you finished, the world probably would've trashed the coordinate system you used and moved on! So we do a handful of reference points and let the software do the rest for us. This can lead to slight inaccuracies, like the "house located in the river" incident. The map coordinates may be correct, but the image alignment is off slightly.

That was a bit long-winded, and I'm certain I got some things wrong (chime in if you spot something!), but you can see that it's definitely not a straightforward problem. There are a lot of steps along the way where it can go wrong.

85 Reader Comments

I think this really misses the mark in a few ways. The beauty of Google Transit directions, especially in the UK is that it compared and combined multiple transit modes and operators for you.

For example, it'd let you know that getting the train (which is run by a different operator in the UK) was a lot quicker than the bus, even if it did mean a few minutes walk on either side. It could even do train+bus combinations, even though the two companies running these services are completely different.

You could even do really clever stuff like a street address from, say, Birmingham to one in London. It'd tell you which local buses to get to the train station, then which tube to get in London, followed by the best bus.

In iOS6 maps, you'd have to consult a lot of different apps for this. There are a few which do pool data like Google does, but they are nowhere near as comprehensive or accurate.

I'm using an app called Transit which Maps recommended (I'm in Vancouver B.C.). While there is a change I'd like to see (I already sent it to them... to have a list of 'steps' in the trip rather than arrows for next/previous 'step'), I'm already liking this solution FAR BETTER than using Safari and Google's Maps on iOS 5.

I should also note, that while I quite like Google Maps and directions on the desktop, I always thought the Google Maps app on iOS was pretty horrible. So, it isn't like we lost a desktop like Google Maps experience for Apple's new Maps.

For me, the GMaps transit option never really worked. Ottawa's transit operator changes the timetables for school and summer, and last year they had a major overhaul to the entire route network. To say the least, GMaps still recommends that I take non-existant buses...

Also, Gatineau's public transit system (Ottawa's twin city) didn't even show up at all in GMaps.

Everything that I've read about the iOS6 maps app implies that they are a disaster. However, from some people who have used them, it sounds like they are no where near as useful as the Google based maps, but they aren't that bad, either.

Is Ars going to try to come up with an objective review about this new map application and properly describe how good/bad they are?

I don't care about transit directions, but the new Maps has beta written all over it. It's not as bad as the press is making it out to be (at least in my experience, especially the people harping on the 3D cause Google Earth has flukes in it too).

I like the new look, but searching for things is very different. It'll get better over time though. I think it was a good attempt overall

*edit* especially compared to what Google offered to iOS before. It was only better at finding businesses and the like. What the new maps does pull up though is faaar more informative

but the new Maps has beta written all over it. ... I like the new look, but searching for things is very different.

I'd say the data it is using has beta written all over it. But, remember, Apple seems to be going the crowd-sourcing model to help fix this (you can EASILY submit corrections!). It's only been out, for what, a couple days now? Already people say it is improving. So, how long will it take to blow past Google at this pace with hundreds of million of mobile correction submitters? I suppose that depends on what mechanisms Apple has in place to check and process the corrections.

But, as this article is about transit, as I noted above, the Google version wasn't so hot IMO. So, I'm already seeing an improvement and things are bound to get much better. I'm a happy camper!

So, how long will it take to blow past Google at this pace with hundreds of million of mobile correction submitters?

I doubt it's going to be that simple.

I'm not defending Apple here, by all means call them out over shoddy stuff. But just generally speaking I'm really behind this move, IMHO any serious competition to Google in the maps sphere is a good thing. Maybe they could have launched it better, maybe this is just the reality of a launch no matter what, but either way I hope we see the map space heat up and force innovation faster.

Can't Google just make an iPhone app for Google Maps? Then all will be right with God's world again.

I'm guessing Google will wait till there is more negative publicity, but not long enough that people will get used to Maps' deficiencies or reach for a substitute. I hope Google doesn't wait too long myself because I'd like Google Maps back on my phone.

Can't Google just make an iPhone app for Google Maps? Then all will be right with God's world again.

As I understand it, Google Maps for iOS never had turn by turn directions using GPS. Apple had to create their own map software to have that feature. It's a new program and it needs to be improved but Apple seems to have had no choice but to do this (to get turn by turn directions in the standard Map app).

Is Ars going to try to come up with an objective review about this new map application and properly describe how good/bad they are?

The problem with any sort of "objective" review for this sort of application is that it's inherently very geovariable, and in particular Apple's approach (effectively utilizing a Market mechanism) is going exacerbate this. It is quite possible that in one city it'll be truly fantastic and completely clobber Google or anyone else, while in another city it's utter garbage that commonly directs people to drive into rivers. Eventually it seems probable that cities themselves will improve, but there may be some areas that are neglected. A diversified approach like what Apple is taking tends to produce both higher highs and lower lows vs a more average baseline. It's going to take a while to see exactly how well the market evolves, though Apple certainly has the installed base to potentially make it work well in the end.

I think this really misses the mark in a few ways. The beauty of Google Transit directions, especially in the UK is that it compared and combined multiple transit modes and operators for you.

For example, it'd let you know that getting the train (which is run by a different operator in the UK) was a lot quicker than the bus, even if it did mean a few minutes walk on either side. It could even do train+bus combinations, even though the two companies running these services are completely different.

You could even do really clever stuff like a street address from, say, Birmingham to one in London. It'd tell you which local buses to get to the train station, then which tube to get in London, followed by the best bus.

In iOS6 maps, you'd have to consult a lot of different apps for this. There are a few which do pool data like Google does, but they are nowhere near as comprehensive or accurate.

The reason for this is probably that Google is an information services broker, it's in their interest to get you the best and most complete results for anything you ask, period.

Apple, on the other hand, is an old guard hardware vendor whose specialty is UI and marketing.

The lowered usefulness of Apple's map software caused by dumping Google will probably never be recovered from as Google will probably always be ahead of them in this game, but it also probably won't really change the perception or sales for Apple, as the people that buy their products generally already seem to be ignoring significant feature deficits in the iOS ecosystem, one more is barely a blip on the radar.

IMHO, people will adjust to using 3rd party apps quite quickly – either by using a Google Maps app, if that should come out, or by iscovering those apps via Maps' built-in search.

As another poster mentioned: Over here in Germany, Google's transit services are almost non-existent (Imagine if the results for San Francisco only included BART trains – that's the level of service, Berlin gets from Google – and that just started this month. Before, there wasn't any public transit info available.) As a result, pretty much every iPhone user has one or more dedicated transit apps. Deutsche Bahn (German's main railway company) has the most comprehensive one, covering pretty much every bus and train schedule anywhere in the country, but there are city-specific ones as well, sometimes offering extra features the DB app doesn't have or just a nicer UI.

If Germans didn't find it too confusing to use 3rd party apps for transit, I'm quite sure, US Americans will quickly get used to 3rd party apps plugging into Maps.app for transit directions.

Now the current state of Apple's map data over here in Germany is a whole different matter. E.g., claiming most of Berlin's territory, including the Brandenburg Gate, for Schöneiche – which, in reality, is a tiny village east of Berlin – is a major PR gaffe, and one that could easily have been avoided since beta users had been sending Apple bug reports about that one for several weeks before launch.

I think the negativity to Apple Maps is hugely over-blown. Google has sent me to closed restaurants hundreds of times over the years, but I never felt the urge to cry "Infamy!" all over the internet. Its a monstrously huge data set, people....

As for transit, I am very optimistic about the future for 3rd Party Development. Its strange that Apple is being decried for deferring to 3rd party innovation instead of offering their own rigid system for transit solutions in maps. Isn't Apple supposed to be the Evil Empire of Walled Gardens?

to the point at hand.

In Portland, OR we have a fantastic transit system and there has been a really terrific 3rd party app (PDX Bus) that offers amazing features. After reading this article, I logged on to App Store because I was curious if they had any info about when they were planning on integrating with Apple Maps. Lo and behold, it already does. I downloaded the update and its really terrific.

I realize not everyone has a great solution today, but as the article states and my experience demonstrates, good things are coming and there is very good reason to embrace the idea that 3rd party developers are going to do great things with Apple Maps.

Namely, Apple will have to open up and communicate Maps-related enhancements before they are introduced.

We all know that Apple loves its secrecy.

Due to the reduction in service and the media trouncing (which appears to be overblown to me), Apple will be forced to manage consumer impressions and set expectations more proactively and with transparency.

--

On another note, I see user experience risks in leaning on 3rd parties for transit maps.

Say, hypothetically, I am hitting Miami, New York, Milan and Dublin (don't ask why) and I need transit maps in each city.

Apple won't be blamed for 3rd party frustrations, but Apple's Maps strategy will be faulted.

What I describe above may turn out to be a non-issue, but from my POV, it's something that Apple must, at least, consider, and I'm sure they will. There are very smart folks within those walls.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to seeing what develops from this situation that must have wheels spinning at Apple.

Funkadocious wrote:

Quote:

Its strange that Apple is being decried for deferring to 3rd party innovation instead of offering their own rigid system for transit solutions in maps. Isn't Apple supposed to be the Evil Empire of Walled Gardens?

Can't Google just make an iPhone app for Google Maps? Then all will be right with God's world again.

As I understand it, Google Maps for iOS never had turn by turn directions using GPS. Apple had to create their own map software to have that feature. It's a new program and it needs to be improved but Apple seems to have had no choice but to do this (to get turn by turn directions in the standard Map app).

Google Earth (with 3-D imagery) is available for iOS.

Technically, Android's version of Maps does not do turn by turn navigation either. If you try to navigate to a location using Maps, it will launch the Navigation app which gives you turn by turn. However, if all you want is directions it overlay the route directly in the Maps app.

The reason for this is probably that Google is an information services broker, it's in their interest to get you the best and most complete results for anything you ask, period.

Apple, on the other hand, is an old guard hardware vendor whose specialty is UI and marketing.

The lowered usefulness of Apple's map software caused by dumping Google will probably never be recovered from as Google will probably always be ahead of them in this game, but it also probably won't really change the perception or sales for Apple, as the people that buy their products generally already seem to be ignoring significant feature deficits in the iOS ecosystem, one more is barely a blip on the radar.

Why do you continue to make ignorant posts spreading misinformation that border on trolling?

I think the negativity to Apple Maps is hugely over-blown. Google has sent me to closed restaurants hundreds of times over the years, but I never felt the urge to cry "Infamy!" all over the internet. Its a monstrously huge data set, people....

As for transit, I am very optimistic about the future for 3rd Party Development. Its strange that Apple is being decried for deferring to 3rd party innovation instead of offering their own rigid system for transit solutions in maps. Isn't Apple supposed to be the Evil Empire of Walled Gardens?

to the point at hand.

In Portland, OR we have a fantastic transit system and there has been a really terrific 3rd party app (PDX Bus) that offers amazing features. After reading this article, I logged on to App Store because I was curious if they had any info about when they were planning on integrating with Apple Maps. Lo and behold, it already does. I downloaded the update and its really terrific.

I realize not everyone has a great solution today, but as the article states and my experience demonstrates, good things are coming and there is very good reason to embrace the idea that 3rd party developers are going to do great things with Apple Maps.

The Google Maps app in iOS5 is really fantastic in Portland. I use it constantly and I've never had a problem with it. PDX Bus, from what I can tell, is pretty horrible. I just put in a destination that I go to all the time and takes 20 minutes with one bus route on google maps, and pdxbus was only giving me options with multiple transfers, at least 70 minutes for every options. Horrible.

I'm sure the options will get better, but I am certainly not upgrading my iPhone 3GS until a decent option comes along

The reason for this is probably that Google is an information services broker, it's in their interest to get you the best and most complete results for anything you ask, period.

Apple, on the other hand, is an old guard hardware vendor whose specialty is UI and marketing.

The lowered usefulness of Apple's map software caused by dumping Google will probably never be recovered from as Google will probably always be ahead of them in this game, but it also probably won't really change the perception or sales for Apple, as the people that buy their products generally already seem to be ignoring significant feature deficits in the iOS ecosystem, one more is barely a blip on the radar.

Why do you continue to make ignorant posts spreading misinformation that border on trolling?

What are you talking about? What part of what I said is misinformation?

I wonder if any developers will charge for their transit app. I would find that annoying of I was travelling in a foreign city and have to buy an app I'd only use a few times. Also with google you can always directions/route times in your native language, yet there might not exist a transit app for that city in your language.

Can't Google just make an iPhone app for Google Maps? Then all will be right with God's world again.

As I understand it, Google Maps for iOS never had turn by turn directions using GPS. Apple had to create their own map software to have that feature. It's a new program and it needs to be improved but Apple seems to have had no choice but to do this (to get turn by turn directions in the standard Map app).

Google Earth (with 3-D imagery) is available for iOS.

Technically, Android's version of Maps does not do turn by turn navigation either. If you try to navigate to a location using Maps, it will launch the Navigation app which gives you turn by turn. However, if all you want is directions it overlay the route directly in the Maps app.

Is Ars going to try to come up with an objective review about this new map application and properly describe how good/bad they are?

The problem with any sort of "objective" review for this sort of application is that it's inherently very geovariable, and in particular Apple's approach (effectively utilizing a Market mechanism) is going exacerbate this. It is quite possible that in one city it'll be truly fantastic and completely clobber Google or anyone else, while in another city it's utter garbage that commonly directs people to drive into rivers. Eventually it seems probable that cities themselves will improve, but there may be some areas that are neglected. A diversified approach like what Apple is taking tends to produce both higher highs and lower lows vs a more average baseline. It's going to take a while to see exactly how well the market evolves, though Apple certainly has the installed base to potentially make it work well in the end.

Ok. Then is Ars going to mention the problems with Apple Maps - outside of Transit? If it gets a splash on the front page of CNN, I'd have expected to see it on a tech site. Or even just a link to the Wired article.

The reason for this is probably that Google is an information services broker, it's in their interest to get you the best and most complete results for anything you ask, period.

Apple, on the other hand, is an old guard hardware vendor whose specialty is UI and marketing.

The lowered usefulness of Apple's map software caused by dumping Google will probably never be recovered from as Google will probably always be ahead of them in this game, but it also probably won't really change the perception or sales for Apple, as the people that buy their products generally already seem to be ignoring significant feature deficits in the iOS ecosystem, one more is barely a blip on the radar.

Why do you continue to make ignorant posts spreading misinformation that border on trolling?

What are you talking about? What part of what I said is misinformation?

1. Apple dumped Google. We don't know who dumped who.2. Significant feature deficits in iOS. iOS never needed a "project butter". It has always had the best Apps and the best user experience. Turn by turn was available via 3rd party. iOS has a different priority than Android for feature development.3. Apple specialty is UI and marketing. The A6 processor says hi. Seriously go to an Apple store if it doesn't kill you and play with an iphone. It is distinctly superior to the GS3 in build and screen quality. The GS3 screen looks to be set at 9000K temperature and it's build quality is about that of the 3GS.

I am sorry but this all sounds like a pain. I am suffering from app overload as it is.

The web is getting bad with so many things getting pushed to apps when it could just be on the web page. I am so tired of a site trying to push an app on me when all I want to do is read something. I should not need an app for that.

For maps all I want to do is go one place to see how get from A to B. I want to see different travel methods all together so I can flip between them and decide if I should take my bike, walk, transit, which transit system, rent a car, or a combination. I want street view so I can check for bike racks and visual landmarks before I leave. I do not want to switch between apps for that. Especially if there are other phones I can buy that will not burden me with this.

Anyone who thinks that Apple didn't see some (or all) of this backlash coming is kidding themselves. Not Apple's first rodeo. Undoubtedly - Apple believes that once they build the app out, it will be a superior solution. People are comparing a 1.0 version to a very mature offering. Should it be better? The consensus is yes. I submit that Google's map app was *just* this side of a joke when you looked at its feature set compared to its age.

To simply go 'back' to Google may be better now, but it won't stay that way. If Google releases a Maps app, I suspect it will be an improvement over the old one similar to Youtube. Both map apps need to add saved routes and additional features. (Route planning anyone? How about just more than two points?)

As they are, they're decent apps and the full-blown GPS apps have advantages except for cost and integration.

I for one have enjoyed the new app. While Android-types will point out they've had turn-by-turn for an eternity, I'm very pleased iOS now has it, and at the implementation. It works well for me. But I don't need walking or transit directions nor do I need international maps.

I don't care about transit directions, but the new Maps has beta written all over it. It's not as bad as the press is making it out to be (at least in my experience, especially the people harping on the 3D cause Google Earth has flukes in it too).

I like the new look, but searching for things is very different. It'll get better over time though. I think it was a good attempt overall

*edit* especially compared to what Google offered to iOS before. It was only better at finding businesses and the like. What the new maps does pull up though is faaar more informative

1. Apple dumped Google. We don't know who dumped who.2. Significant feature deficits in iOS. iOS never needed a "project butter". It has always had the best Apps and the best user experience. Turn by turn was available via 3rd party. iOS has a different priority than Android for feature development.3. Apple specialty is UI and marketing. The A6 processor says hi. Seriously go to an Apple store if it doesn't kill you and play with an iphone. It is distinctly superior to the GS3 in build and screen quality. The GS3 screen looks to be set at 9000K temperature and it's build quality is about that of the 3GS.

1. Sure it might have been Google, but considering they're an information services company I really doubt it was Google that wanted less people using their services. It certainly seems more likely that the company that wants to go thermonuclear on Android would dump Android's progenitor, but point taken, it is simply deduced reasonably at this point that it was Apple that wanted rid of Google, and not empirical fact.2. Look, if you don't know that iOS is significantly lacking in features and customizability then I'm not going to argue the point with you. You have your idea on what a feature is, I have mine. From everything I've seen Android is the more feature rich and user customizable OS.3. Did you even read my post? Let me quote the relevant segment for you: "Apple, on the other hand, is an old guard hardware vendor"

There is no reason why tested Apps to help you move around and buy stuff should not have open and efficient APIs (no intentional handicaps) in every OS and browser. If Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and their ilk want to offer an in house product, options to download and/or use Apps produced by others should be offered every day. Intentional negligence by not recalling dangerous Apps should be treated in court the same way as Firestone Tires ( which put the company out of business).

Anyone who thinks that Apple didn't see some (or all) of this backlash coming is kidding themselves. Not Apple's first rodeo. Undoubtedly - Apple believes that once they build the app out, it will be a superior solution. People are comparing a 1.0 version to a very mature offering. Should it be better? The consensus is yes. I submit that Google's map app was *just* this side of a joke when you looked at its feature set compared to its age.

To simply go 'back' to Google may be better now, but it won't stay that way.

Yes, Apple doesn't have to be inventive, they just have to copy Google. Like I said, Google maps will probably always be somewhat ahead of Apple's maps, but it won't matter - the iphone is a phenomenon. It's not the features, or the maps, or the whatever that sells it. It's the idea that the iphone is the best.

Ok. Then is Ars going to mention the problems with Apple Maps - outside of Transit? If it gets a splash on the front page of CNN, I'd have expected to see it on a tech site. Or even just a link to the Wired article.[/quote]What exactly is there left to say? Unless Ars has something new to add, pointing out the there are many problems with the new Maps isn't going to add much.

OTOH, a review of alternative map apps and web sites would be welcome.

As usual, we have the Apple faithful bending over backwards to show things are ok (or at least not as horrible as some say) while the anti Apple crowd are overblowing a problem.

First, something I think the Apple faithful keep missing: one of the major arguments they make for Apple products is that 'they just work' and that Apple is all about quality and great experiences. These are the *core* arguments for choosing Apple over any other option and why they pay more for Apple products and deal with many limitations other platforms don't have.

Fair enough. Except that lately, that's simply not a position that's easy to defend. Google Maps wasn't perfect - but no one - not even Google - made any claim it was. It works well for most people in most cases. That's all anyone claimed.

So, if iOS 6' map app was about as good as Google Maps, it's already lowering the bar. Apple products are supposed to be easy to use, have great quality and offer a great experience. Google Maps is below that bar (most apps are). But in fact, iOS 6 Maps is *below* Google Maps in general quality. Arguing that Google Maps isn't that great is an irrelevent argument because *no one* defined Google Maps as a gold standard - it's just the most commonly used app.

Most people expect (perhaps without just cause) that if Apple does something - it will inherently be BETTER than the competition, not the same and definitely not worse. That's the bar. Either abandon this world view or apply it - but applying it ONLY when you can win and refusing to apply it when you know you'll lose is poor sportsmanship.

Will iOS 6 Maps get better? Assuming it's not abandoned at some point, then of course it will. Will it get better than Google Maps? VERY hard to say, but my gut says 'unlikely' simply because Google invests a lot on maps. Unless Apple is going to start sending out cars around the world doing street view, there's going to be areas Apple won't be willing to implement.

Which brings us to Transit. Another oft cited argument for why iOS is superior is the integration. But now a part of the information of an otherwise seamless (if wonky) app is owned by someone else. That's going to make using transit related features in third party (fourth party?) apps more difficult and inconsistent since you'll have to see what's installed.

At the same time, all Google has to do is pay someone to monitor transit websites for major cities and voila - parity with better integration with third party app.

In the end, no matter how you paint up this pig - it's still a pig. Apple's decision to turf Google Maps isn't based on making things better for the customer - it's all about punching Google in the face. Unfortunately, the customer got punched along with them.

This is the singular upshot of living in a city of 6+ million whose mass transit policy is "five or six buses and one train." The loss of mass transit directions only matters if there was mass transit to begin with.

Ok. Then is Ars going to mention the problems with Apple Maps - outside of Transit? If it gets a splash on the front page of CNN, I'd have expected to see it on a tech site. Or even just a link to the Wired article.

What exactly is there left to say? Unless Ars has something new to add, pointing out the there are many problems with the new Maps isn't going to add much.

OTOH, a review of alternative map apps and web sites would be welcome.

For the most part, I think the coverage Ars has provided is fair and balanced, but this is a significant tech issue. And, please, in many of the recent iPhone articles, they haven't really added anything specific that couldn't be found somewhere else. By your logic, we only need one news source/tech site.

I like the quality and style of writing here at Ars, so I'd rather read my news here than somewhere else.

I think an article on how you can take map data from various sources (Tom Tom and others) and end up with this level of problems would be good. I admit that I don't have a good idea of how all that backend programming works, so I would be interested to learn more.

Anyone who thinks that Apple didn't see some (or all) of this backlash coming is kidding themselves. Not Apple's first rodeo. Undoubtedly - Apple believes that once they build the app out, it will be a superior solution. People are comparing a 1.0 version to a very mature offering. Should it be better? The consensus is yes. I submit that Google's map app was *just* this side of a joke when you looked at its feature set compared to its age.

To simply go 'back' to Google may be better now, but it won't stay that way.

Yes, Apple doesn't have to be inventive, they just have to copy Google. Like I said, Google maps will probably always be somewhat ahead of Apple's maps, but it won't matter - the iphone is a phenomenon. It's not the features, or the maps, or the whatever that sells it. It's the idea that the iphone is the best.

Why does it always seem to deteriorate into a "Apple didn't invent" or that "iphone is the best." discussion?

The public opinion of Apple and its products is superiority. Whether that's true or not is personal opinion. That IS the brand identity that's been built. Everyone else would kill to have that. Not only are their products pretty darn good, the marketing used to present them to the public is nothing short of incredible when you stop and look at it.

What many people miss is that Apple's marketing department is also outstanding.

The company line is that the best transit apps are ones that are tailored to each city.

This may be true, but if you travel a lot to different cities, why should you have to have to find the best app for each city yourself? If the rest of the app store (iOS and otherwise) is any indication, often the 'best' app in niche categories can be easily hidden by a much larger number of bad apps. And nothing will count as a niche category as "Transit app for small city x that isn't one of the top 100 in the US"

There is real value in having a 'lowest common denominator' of the functionality that isn't as dependent on the specific city. Google maps provided this for most major metropolitan areas (and maybe even smaller areas, I really don't know.)